2010 Compu-Picks Ratings - College

The Compu-Picks model rates the top and bottom teams in college football after the end of the regular season

One of the things that I like to do with this model is come up with interesting bits of information about the season.
Rankings, schedule strength, which teams got better and which got worse, which teams had an especially strong home-field edge
and which did relatively better on the road (yes there WERE a few, as there usually are), and more.
I hope you enjoy the list and commentary, and if you have some ideas for things you'd like to see in future versions of this,
please let me know. I'm always on the lookout for good new ideas, either to incorporate into the model itself or into the
exhibits I provide based on the model.

Please remember that these ratings are used for the sole purpose of predicting future results.
There are no bonus points for being undefeated, or being from a top conference, or playing X number of top 25 teams,
or beating a team with a similar ranking head to head, or any single other sort of adjustment that many people use when making their rankings.
Schedule strength counts a lot, and margin counts a lot. A close loss against a great team gives a better rating than a close win against a lousy team.
Many people object to this, but in terms of predictive value, I consider it the only way to go.
These rankings look different than most human polls, and for that matter they look different from most computer polls.
That's OK. It's supposed to look different, both because its goals are different, and because it operates differently from other models.
The only standard I use to judge it is how accurate its picks are, and so far this year it's been pretty solid, going 111-93 (54.4%) ATS.

Team Rankings - 1 to 120

1 Oregon

31 Iowa

61 Brigham Young

91 Rutgers

2 Stanford

32 Florida

62 Fresno State

92 Texas-El Paso

3 Texas Christian

33 Hawaii

63 Mississippi

93 Vanderbilt

4 Boise State

34 Air Force

64 Colorado

94 Alabama-Birmingham

5 Auburn

35 Georgia

65 South Florida

95 Utah State

6 Virginia Tech

36 Clemson

66 Iowa State

96 Arkansas State

7 Alabama

37 Maryland

67 Southern Methodist

97 Kansas

8 Ohio State

38 California

68 Connecticut

98 Wyoming

9 Arkansas

39 Pittsburgh

69 Syracuse

99 Marshall

10 Oklahoma

40 North Carolina

70 Houston

100 Central Michigan

11 Missouri

41 San Diego State

71 Toledo

101 Louisiana-Monroe

12 Nebraska

42 Illinois

72 Temple

102 Colorado State

13 Oklahoma State

43 Navy

73 East Carolina

103 Nevada-Las Vegas

14 South Carolina

44 Kansas State

74 Northwestern

104 Kent

15 Wisconsin

45 Central Florida

75 Army

105 North Texas

16 Louisiana State

46 Baylor

76 Louisiana Tech

106 Rice

17 Nevada

47 Washington

77 Idaho

107 Tulane

18 Florida State

48 Texas Tech

78 Cincinnati

108 Middle Tennessee State

19 Arizona

49 Michigan

79 Troy State

109 San Jose State

20 Texas A&M

50 Penn State

80 Washington State

110 Florida Atlantic

21 Southern California

51 Northern Illinois

81 Minnesota

111 Louisiana-Lafayette

22 North Carolina State

52 Texas

82 Ohio

112 Bowling Green State

23 Utah

53 Tennessee

83 Western Michigan

113 Western Kentucky

24 Arizona State

54 Boston College

84 Purdue

114 Ball State

25 Michigan State

55 Southern Mississippi

85 Wake Forest

115 New Mexico

26 West Virginia

56 Tulsa

86 Virginia

116 New Mexico State

27 Miami (Florida)

57 UCLA

87 Duke

117 Memphis

28 Notre Dame

58 Georgia Tech

88 Florida International

118 Eastern Michigan

29 Mississippi State

59 Louisville

89 Miami (Ohio)

119 Buffalo

30 Oregon State

60 Kentucky

90 Indiana

120 Akron

Detailed Top 30 Team Ratings

Rank

BCS Rank

Team

League

Score

Schedule Rank

1

2

Oregon

Pac-10

0.93

6

2

4

Stanford

Pac-10

0.88

3

3

3

Texas Christian

Mountain West

0.83

42

4

10

Boise State

WAC

0.81

38

5

1

Auburn

SEC

0.75

8

6

13

Virginia Tech

ACC

0.69

34

7

16

Alabama

SEC

0.67

14

8

6

Ohio State

Big Ten

0.65

57

9

8

Arkansas

SEC

0.59

15

10

7

Oklahoma

Big 12

0.59

12

11

12

Missouri

Big 12

0.56

23

12

18

Nebraska

Big 12

0.56

27

13

14

Oklahoma State

Big 12

0.53

39

14

20

South Carolina

SEC

0.52

10

15

5

Wisconsin

Big Ten

0.51

51

16

11

Louisiana State

SEC

0.50

17

17

15

Nevada

WAC

0.50

66

18

23

Florida State

ACC

0.50

16

19

NR

Arizona

Pac-10

0.47

5

20

17

Texas A&M

Big 12

0.44

20

21

NR

Southern California

Pac-10

0.42

11

22

NR

North Carolina State

ACC

0.38

25

23

19

Utah

Mountain West

0.38

62

24

NR

Arizona State

Pac-10

0.37

2

25

9

Michigan State

Big Ten

0.35

54

26

22

West Virginia

Big East

0.35

67

27

NR

Miami (Florida)

ACC

0.34

19

28

NR

Notre Dame

Indep

0.33

30

29

21

Mississippi State

SEC

0.32

21

30

NR

Oregon State

Pac-10

0.31

1

Schedule Strength - Top and Bottom 30

Team

Sagarin SOS Ranking

NCAA SOS Ranking

FEI SOS Ranking

Team

1 Oregon State

1

12

12

91 Army

2 Arizona State

6

50

21

92 Tulsa

3 Stanford

10

85

62

93 Marshall

4 UCLA

4

74

42

94 Tulane

5 Arizona

12

57

28

95 Central Michigan

6 Oregon

19

150

73

96 Toledo

7 Washington

2

37

24

97 Louisiana-Monroe

8 Auburn

15

3

13

98 Alabama-Birmingham

9 California

5

35

41

99 Central Florida

10 South Carolina

14

3

1

100 Rice

11 Southern California

7

71

40

101 Florida Atlantic

12 Oklahoma

8

10

25

102 Texas-El Paso

13 Washington State

3

28

18

103 Troy State

14 Alabama

17

20

8

104 Louisiana-Lafayette

15 Arkansas

21

9

2

105 Temple

16 Florida State

25

33

11

106 Eastern Michigan

17 Louisiana State

24

6

4

107 Miami (Ohio)

18 Florida

16

5

23

108 Arkansas State

19 Miami (Florida)

32

15

14

109 Bowling Green State

20 Texas A&M

11

2

34

110 Florida International

21 Mississippi State

29

6

111 Buffalo

22 Wake Forest

31

5

112 Northern Illinois

23 Missouri

26

58

113 Kent

24 Clemson

37

7

114 Akron

25 North Carolina State

45

39

115 Western Michigan

26 Iowa State

13

46

116 North Texas

27 Nebraska

28

48

117 Western Kentucky

28 North Carolina

34

17

118 Ohio

29 Georgia

35

10

119 Ball State

30 Notre Dame

23

47

120 Middle Tennessee State

League Ratings

League

Rating

OOC Schedule Rating

Home/Away/Neutral Splits

OOC vs Top 10

OOC vs 11-20

OOC vs 21-40

OOC vs 41-60

OOC vs 61-80

OOC vs 81-100

OOC vs Bottom 20

Pac-10

0.35

0.16

10 / 14 / 0

0 - 2

0 - 4

3 - 1

3 - 1

4 - 2

3 - 0

1 - 0

SEC

0.30

-0.16

26 / 9 / 2

0 - 1

1 - 1

4 - 0

4 - 0

4 - 3

6 - 1

12 - 0

Big 12

0.22

-0.07

26 / 11 / 3

0 - 2

1 - 0

3 - 3

8 - 2

7 - 0

4 - 0

10 - 0

ACC

0.16

0.07

18 / 15 / 2

0 - 6

0 - 2

2 - 4

3 - 1

5 - 3

4 - 1

4 - 0

Indep

0.12

-0.06

15 / 12 / 1

0 - 1

0 - 0

3 - 5

1 - 2

3 - 1

6 - 2

4 - 0

Big Ten

0.12

-0.14

23 / 10 / 1

0 - 1

0 - 2

4 - 2

1 - 1

3 - 2

6 - 0

12 - 0

Big East

-0.01

-0.08

16 / 15 / 0

0 - 1

0 - 1

2 - 7

0 - 4

1 - 2

6 - 0

6 - 1

WAC

-0.04

0.02

14 / 18 / 0

1 - 2

0 - 3

2 - 2

1 - 4

5 - 2

2 - 2

5 - 1

Mountain West

-0.04

0.09

14 / 18 / 1

0 - 3

0 - 6

2 - 3

3 - 2

5 - 2

1 - 3

2 - 1

C-USA

-0.24

0.00

20 / 22 / 0

0 - 4

0 - 2

2 - 6

0 - 11

3 - 3

3 - 0

6 - 2

MAC

-0.43

0.00

11 / 31 / 0

0 - 4

0 - 2

0 - 4

0 - 10

2 - 9

3 - 6

2 - 0

Sun Belt

-0.47

0.04

8 / 26 / 0

0 - 3

0 - 6

0 - 5

0 - 6

0 - 4

1 - 6

1 - 2

League

Rating

OOC Schedule Rating

OOC vs AQ's

OOC vs Non-AQ's

OOC vs Pac-10 / SEC

OOC vs Big 12 / ACC / Big Ten

OOC vs Big East

OOC vs MWC / WAC

OOC vs CUSA

OOC vs MAC / Sun Belt

Pac-10

0.35

0.16

10 - 5

4 - 5

1 - 0

6 - 4

2 - 0

2 - 4

1 - 1

1 - 0

SEC

0.30

-0.16

10 - 6

21 - 0

0 - 1

7 - 4

3 - 1

2 - 0

8 - 0

11 - 0

Big 12

0.22

-0.07

8 - 4

25 - 3

4 - 3

3 - 1

1 - 0

10 - 2

6 - 1

9 - 0

ACC

0.16

0.07

6 - 13

12 - 4

2 - 7

0 - 3

4 - 2

1 - 1

3 - 1

6 - 0

Indep

0.12

-0.06

6 - 6

11 - 5

1 - 1

4 - 4

1 - 1

2 - 3

3 - 1

6 - 1

Big Ten

0.12

-0.14

7 - 5

19 - 3

2 - 3

2 - 1

1 - 0

2 - 1

2 - 0

15 - 2

Big East

-0.01

-0.08

3 - 12

12 - 4

1 - 5

2 - 6

0 - 0

1 - 2

2 - 1

8 - 1

WAC

-0.04

0.02

5 - 9

11 - 7

2 - 3

2 - 6

1 - 0

8 - 4

0 - 2

2 - 0

Mountain West

-0.04

0.09

5 - 10

8 - 10

2 - 1

2 - 7

1 - 1

4 - 8

1 - 1

1 - 1

C-USA

-0.24

0.00

5 - 22

9 - 6

1 - 9

2 - 11

1 - 2

3 - 1

0 - 0

6 - 2

MAC

-0.43

0.00

3 - 25

4 - 10

0 - 4

2 - 17

1 - 3

1 - 3

1 - 3

1 - 1

Sun Belt

-0.47

0.04

0 - 26

2 - 6

0 - 8

0 - 13

0 - 5

0 - 0

1 - 3

1 - 1

Top and Bottom 25 Home-Road Splits

This describes how much better a team played at home vs on the road. It's well worth noting that it's neither good nor bad to be high or low on this list; it's good to have an especially strong home-field edge, with a loud crowd and possibly a weather edge, but it's also good to be able to play well on the road. Consequently, you will tend to see most really good teams around the middle of the list, because they do have a strong home-field edge but also are very capable of playing well on the road.

1 Connecticut

96 Miami (Florida)

2 Iowa

97 Temple

3 California

98 Nebraska

4 Nevada-Las Vegas

99 North Texas

5 Colorado

100 Arizona

6 Northern Illinois

101 Arkansas

7 Rice

102 Vanderbilt

8 Colorado State

103 Toledo

9 Marshall

104 Utah State

10 Georgia

105 Stanford

11 Arizona State

106 Louisiana-Lafayette

12 Kentucky

107 Southern California

13 Louisiana-Monroe

108 Tulane

14 Arkansas State

109 Utah

15 Wyoming

110 Troy State

16 Kent

111 Buffalo

17 North Carolina State

112 Virginia Tech

18 Middle Tennessee State

113 Washington State

19 Brigham Young

114 Florida International

20 Southern Methodist

115 Ball State

21 Iowa State

116 Central Michigan

22 New Mexico State

117 Western Kentucky

23 East Carolina

118 Texas

24 UCLA

119 Navy

25 Oklahoma

120 Syracuse

Top and Bottom 25 Most / Least Improved

This describes how much better a team played at the end of the year compared to how they played early on.
Since the system is rating how good a team is now, it's better to be higher than lower on this list,
though of course the best result is to play at a really high level the whole year long.

1 Connecticut

96 Utah State

2 West Virginia

97 Michigan

3 Washington State

98 Southern Methodist

4 Auburn

99 Illinois

5 Brigham Young

100 California

6 Louisville

101 East Carolina

7 Boston College

102 Nebraska

8 Washington

103 Florida

9 Notre Dame

104 Kansas

10 Maryland

105 Central Michigan

11 South Florida

106 Missouri

12 Duke

107 Eastern Michigan

13 Syracuse

108 Ball State

14 Pittsburgh

109 Bowling Green State

15 Stanford

110 Northwestern

16 Arkansas

111 Temple

17 Georgia

112 Colorado

18 Navy

113 Baylor

19 Hawaii

114 Texas

20 Oregon

115 Kansas State

21 Texas-El Paso

116 Florida Atlantic

22 Southern Mississippi

117 Iowa

23 Virginia Tech

118 Iowa State

24 Wisconsin

119 Vanderbilt

25 New Mexico

120 Buffalo

Top Forty wins of the Year

Game Rank

Team

Opponent

Location

Score

1

Oregon

Stanford

HOME

52 - 31

2

Auburn

South Carolina

NEUTRAL

56 - 17

3

Texas Christian

Utah

AWAY

47 - 7

4

Stanford

California

AWAY

48 - 14

5

Arkansas

South Carolina

AWAY

41 - 20

6

Missouri

Texas A&M

AWAY

30 - 9

7

Stanford

Oregon State

HOME

38 - 0

8

Auburn

Arkansas

HOME

65 - 43

9

Stanford

Washington

AWAY

41 - 0

10

Oklahoma

Florida State

HOME

47 - 17

11

Florida State

Miami (Florida)

AWAY

45 - 17

12

Nebraska

Kansas State

AWAY

48 - 13

13

Boise State

Hawaii

HOME

42 - 7

14

Boise State

Fresno State

HOME

51 - 0

15

Oregon

Southern California

AWAY

53 - 32

16

Stanford

UCLA

AWAY

35 - 0

17

Stanford

Arizona

HOME

42 - 17

18

Utah

Iowa State

AWAY

68 - 27

19

Stanford

Notre Dame

AWAY

37 - 14

20

Texas Christian

Air Force

HOME

38 - 7

21

Miami (Florida)

Pittsburgh

AWAY

31 - 3

22

South Carolina

Clemson

AWAY

29 - 7

23

Oregon State

Southern California

HOME

36 - 7

24

South Carolina

Florida

AWAY

36 - 14

25

California

Arizona State

HOME

50 - 17

26

Oregon

Oregon State

AWAY

37 - 20

27

Alabama

Tennessee

AWAY

41 - 10

28

Oregon

Arizona

HOME

48 - 29

29

Boise State

Toledo

HOME

57 - 14

30

Notre Dame

Utah

HOME

28 - 3

31

Oregon

UCLA

HOME

60 - 13

32

Wisconsin

Ohio State

HOME

31 - 18

33

Oklahoma

Iowa State

HOME

52 - 0

34

Texas Christian

Baylor

HOME

45 - 10

35

Oregon

Washington

HOME

53 - 16

36

Oregon

Arizona State

AWAY

42 - 31

37

Alabama

Florida

HOME

31 - 6

38

Iowa

Michigan State

HOME

37 - 6

39

West Virginia

Pittsburgh

AWAY

35 - 10

40

South Carolina

Alabama

HOME

35 - 21

Bottom Forty losses of the Year

Game Rank

Team

Opponent

Location

Score

1327

Akron

Ohio

AWAY

10 - 38

1328

Miami (Ohio)

Ohio

HOME

13 - 34

1329

Buffalo

Miami (Ohio)

HOME

9 - 21

1330

Western Kentucky

Louisiana-Monroe

HOME

30 - 35

1331

Ball State

Kent

AWAY

14 - 33

1332

Vanderbilt

Wake Forest

HOME

13 - 34

1333

Middle Tennessee State

Memphis

AWAY

17 - 24

1334

Louisiana-Lafayette

Florida International

HOME

17 - 38

1335

Middle Tennessee State

Troy State

HOME

13 - 42

1336

Alabama-Birmingham

Marshall

HOME

17 - 31

1337

Wyoming

Nevada-Las Vegas

AWAY

16 - 42

1338

North Texas

Florida International

HOME

10 - 34

1339

Central Michigan

Ball State

HOME

17 - 31

1340

Kent

Western Michigan

AWAY

3 - 38

1341

New Mexico State

Texas-El Paso

AWAY

10 - 42

1342

Florida Atlantic

Middle Tennessee State

AWAY

14 - 38

1343

Buffalo

Eastern Michigan

HOME

17 - 21

1344

Louisiana-Monroe

Middle Tennessee State

AWAY

10 - 38

1345

New Mexico State

Kansas

AWAY

16 - 42

1346

Buffalo

Akron

AWAY

14 - 22

1347

Memphis

Houston

HOME

17 - 56

1348

New Mexico

Texas-El Paso

HOME

20 - 38

1349

Nevada-Las Vegas

Colorado State

AWAY

10 - 43

1350

Marshall

Bowling Green State

AWAY

28 - 44

1351

Eastern Michigan

Northern Illinois

HOME

3 - 71

1352

New Mexico

Colorado State

AWAY

14 - 38

1353

Eastern Michigan

Toledo

HOME

7 - 42

1354

Florida Atlantic

Troy State

HOME

7 - 44

1355

Akron

Temple

AWAY

0 - 30

1356

Louisiana-Lafayette

Middle Tennessee State

HOME

14 - 34

1357

New Mexico

Nevada-Las Vegas

AWAY

10 - 45

1358

Bowling Green State

Western Michigan

HOME

7 - 41

1359

Colorado State

Wyoming

AWAY

0 - 44

1360

Eastern Michigan

Central Michigan

HOME

14 - 52

1361

Akron

Western Michigan

HOME

10 - 56

1362

Buffalo

Temple

HOME

0 - 42

1363

Eastern Michigan

Vanderbilt

AWAY

6 - 52

1364

Bowling Green State

Kent

HOME

6 - 30

1365

Buffalo

Ball State

HOME

3 - 20

1366

Western Kentucky

North Texas

HOME

6 - 33

25 Biggest Head-Scratchers

These were the games that, after all of the games have been played, stick out as especially weird.
For instance, if a 20-point underdog wins by 10 early in the year, but then they go 8-4 and the team they upset goes 4-8, well,
that's not really so weird. But if a 14-point favorite wins by 35, then ends up 4-8 while the team they beat goes 8-4,
then that would stick out as a weird result despite it making sense at the time.

Game Rank

Team

Opponent

Location

Score

1

Washington State

Oregon State

AWAY

31 - 14

2

Vanderbilt

Mississippi

AWAY

28 - 14

3

Texas

Nebraska

AWAY

20 - 13

4

Houston

Southern Methodist

AWAY

45 - 20

5

Syracuse

Cincinnati

AWAY

31 - 7

6

Western Kentucky

Louisiana-Lafayette

AWAY

54 - 21

7

Ohio

Miami (Ohio)

AWAY

34 - 13

8

Miami (Florida)

Pittsburgh

AWAY

31 - 3

9

Navy

Notre Dame

NEUTRAL

35 - 17

10

Kent

Bowling Green State

AWAY

30 - 6

11

Missouri

Texas A&M

AWAY

30 - 9

12

North Texas

Western Kentucky

AWAY

33 - 6

13

Utah

Iowa State

AWAY

68 - 27

14

Utah State

Brigham Young

HOME

31 - 16

15

Arkansas

South Carolina

AWAY

41 - 20

16

Syracuse

West Virginia

AWAY

19 - 14

17

Tulane

Texas-El Paso

AWAY

34 - 24

18

West Virginia

Pittsburgh

AWAY

35 - 10

19

Rice

East Carolina

HOME

62 - 38

20

Colorado

Hawaii

HOME

31 - 13

21

Marshall

Alabama-Birmingham

AWAY

31 - 17

22

Florida State

Miami (Florida)

AWAY

45 - 17

23

Kent

Ohio

HOME

28 - 6

24

California

Arizona State

HOME

50 - 17

25

Miami (Ohio)

Temple

HOME

23 - 3

Some thoughts on the results:

1) As part of my regular season analysis, I'm providing some schedule strength numbers reflecting the top and bottom 30 schedules according to compu-picks,
as well as comparisons for the top 30 schedules to some other sources of schedule ranking:
Sagarin,
NCAA,
and FEI (from football outsiders).
The numbers from these sites (except Sagarin) are all
from before the Army-Navy game, so it is likely that they will be updated by the time you look at them, though I would be surprised to see material differences.
One thing about the compu-picks schedule numbers that is important to note is that they do not include 1-AA games (these games are counted as byes, and do not
affect schedule, margin, etc; it's as if they never happened). So in that regard, the Sagarin numbers (which do include those games) are probably a bit more accurate
in terms of rating how difficult a team's entire year-long schedule actually was. Of course, the Sagarin numbers also correlate pretty closely to the compu-picks
numbers, so I'm not really sweating the difference. If you could somehow back out the AA games, my guess is that his numbers would correlate extremely closely to these.

The most obvious thing you can see from looking at the table is how wildly different compu-picks' numbers are from both the NCAA and FEI numbers (especially the NCAA numbers).
The NCAA numbers are calculating using simple W/L records as a proxy for schedule strength. This approach is, of course, ridiculous. Anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.
There's really no argument here. If you believe the NCAA numbers, then you believe (for starters - there's plenty more dumb numbers here):

Villanova had a tougher schedule than Oregon St, Alabama, and was light-years tougher than UCLA and Tennessee
Appalaichan St had a tougher schedule than UCLA, Tennessee, and was light-years tougher than Virginia, Vandy and Oregon
UNLV had a tougher schedule than Washington, Iowa, Mississippi St, Texas Tech, Clemson, and Colorado

That's completely absurd even without bothering to factor in home-field advantage (which, of course, the NCAA numbers don't bother to do).
I refuse to take seriously anyone who cites these numbers are being reasonable, much less correct, and you should too. That's why I didn't bother to fill in
the full list; just looking at 20 of them it's obvious enough that the numbers are garbage, so I didn't feel like bothering to do 30 (plus the .pdf format the NCAA
puts the numbers in makes pulling the results an annoying manual process, whereas it was much easier for the other two sources).

The most significant difference between the FEI schedule numbers and the compu-picks numbers is that FEI is defining schedule strength not as the average
difficulty of a game, but the odds that an elite team would go undefeated against the schedule. The effect here is that higher difficulty games are strongly
weighted, while there really isn't much of a difference between, say, playing the 80th rated team and the 120th rated team. That's not an entirely unreasoanble
approach, but it's definitely measuring something much different than what compu-picks measures. Since he doesn't publish "average difficulty" numbers,
it's impossible for me to say how much of the differences are due to his measuring something different and how much is due to differences in team ratings.
My guess is that the bulk majority is due to what he's measuring... but that's just a guess.

Ultimately, I think the compu-picks schedule ratings are very good, for what they're trying to measure. I certainly accept the fact that, by throwing out AA games,
it's telling an incomplete story. However, even accounting for that I believe that its numbers are generally accurate, and compare very well to just about everything out
there (though again, I'm inclined to think Sagarin's schedule numbers are a bit better, mainly because he does account for the AA games).

2) Speaking of schedule strength, it's worth asking whether it really makes sense to adjust for home-field advantage.
Does it really make a difference?

The answer is yes, as shown in the table below.
With only a 53% winning percentage overall, it's pretty clear that home-field isn't much of a predictor in aggregate; however,
when you throw out the mismatches (loosely defined here as games where one team ended up with 2 or more league wins than the other), the story is much different.
When the teams ended up with the same number of league wins, the home team won slightly more than two-thirds of the time (it's a small sample size,
of course, but it's still a very compelling number). When you expand the list
to minor mismatches (teams ending up within one win of each other), the win rate drops, but is still close to 60%. So in answer to the question,
yes I do think that it's a relevant factor that makes a lot of sense to include in this rating system. In fact, I would go so far as to say that
any system which fails to account for this is flawed; certainly that includes the NCAA's ridiculous schedule numbers, but it also includes
most or all of the BCS computers as well.

League

Home Team W/L (%) - overall

Home Team W/L (%) - same # wins

Home Team W/L (%) - within 1 win

Pac-10

23 - 22 (51%)

1 - 3 (25%)

11 - 5 (69%)

SEC

27 - 20 (57%)

3 - 2 (60%)

10 - 7 (59%)

Big 12

23 - 21 (52%)

4 - 2 (67%)

11 - 6 (65%)

ACC

26 - 22 (54%)

7 - 1 (88%)

12 - 8 (60%)

Indep

0 - 1 (0%)

0 - 0 (%)

0 - 1 (0%)

Big Ten

22 - 21 (51%)

4 - 1 (80%)

8 - 7 (53%)

Big East

12 - 16 (43%)

2 - 2 (50%)

3 - 9 (25%)

WAC

20 - 16 (56%)

3 - 0 (100%)

6 - 2 (75%)

Mountain West

23 - 13 (64%)

5 - 0 (100%)

9 - 1 (90%)

C-USA

29 - 19 (60%)

4 - 1 (80%)

13 - 4 (76%)

MAC

25 - 27 (48%)

1 - 2 (33%)

4 - 9 (31%)

Sun Belt

17 - 19 (47%)

2 - 3 (40%)

8 - 10 (44%)

Total

247 - 217 (53%)

36 - 17 (68%)

95 - 69 (58%)

3) After five out of the six weeks I've posted comments, at least one teams the model thought that the BCS overrated got exposed (I'm ignoring this past
week's results, since there was only one game played):

Of course, there have been ones going the other way, most notably Oregon St's stunning implosion against Washington St (followed by a great win against USC).
But it certainly seems like there have been more noteworthy bad showings by teams the model thought overrated than those it thought underrated.

4) League ratings have been a fairly popular source of comments, so let's talk about them again. The popular perception (as shown by a CBS columnist
here), is that the Pac-10 is somehow "down".
The basic reasoning is that the overall records aren't outstanding (the league's OOC was close to .500), and that the league is VERY top heavy (Oregon and Stanford
have basically dominated the league). It's also been said here
that the Pac-10's problem was that the league "fail(ed) to hold any momentum it might have had from the non-conference schedule"... basically, that evne though the non-conference went great,
somehow the intra-league games somehow caused the league's rating to decline. This is, of course, silly.

As shown in the above tables, the Pac-10 has the BEST record nationwide against other AQ leagues.
Moreover, of all the AQ leagues, they're the one which has played by far the toughest slate. They're the only AQ league which has played a majority
of its 1-A games on the road; they've played the fewest by far games againt the bottom 40 teams (as rated by compu-picks). They've played precisely ONE
game against the Mac and Sun Belt combined; as a contrast, the Big Ten has lost more games to those two leagues (both double-digit HOME losses to the MAC)
than the Pac-10 has games against them. In fact, if you break down the OOC records by groupings of 20 (as in the above table),
the only leagues that show comparable results to the Pac-10 are the SEC and Big 12, and that's before you factor in home-field advantage. It's also worth
noting that the Pac-10 is one of the only leagues without a AA loss; while the model doesn't factor in those games, as humans we can do so, and it's another
point in the league's favor.

Focusing on the bottom 40 for a bit, the Pac-10 doesn't have any bottom 40 OOC losses (only the Big 12 and Big Ten can say the same), and had only one game with less than a 7 point win
against that group (USC's win over Virginia), as opposed to the SEC's two close calls against UAB; the Big Ten's close calls against Ark St, CMU, and Vandy; the Big 12's close call against Troy;
the ACC's close call against Rutgers; and the Big East's close calls against Marshall and FIU.

Basically, the unfortunate truth is that the BCS rewards easy schedules and punishes tough ones. When a league as a whole "gimmicks up" its record (overwhelming number of home games, majority of
OOC games against bad competition), it gets rewarded. When the Big Ten schedules a ridiculous 17 games against the MAC/Sun Belt (not to mention the AA games), and actually LOSES two of them, it gets
rewarded for it. When the Pac-10 has nine league games, a brutal OOC slate, has an outstanding 10-5 record against other AQ's, and has a near-total lack of "bad losses" (the worst was Wazzu at
SMU, hardly a MAC-level loss), it gets punished for it with the silly perception that it's "down".
The inescapable conclusion is that there is NOTHING that the league could have done to be perceived as excellent this year given the schedules it had to face.

Besides the bias and laziness of most analysts that attempt to evaluate leagues,
what does that mean going forward? Mainly, it means that the Pac-10 needs to gimmick up its schedules too. That means no more paycheck
games on the road (see: Colorado at Ohio St coming up, as well as recent games such as Oregon St at TCU, Wazzu at Notre Dame, Auburn, Wisconsin [technically a 2:1 but I've got a bridge to sell you if you think it's likely the Badgers trek to Pullman as scheduled], etc.).
That means fewer games against other AQ's (15 of the league's 28 OOC slots were against other AQ's, plus there were Oregon St's games against Boise and TCU).
That means getting paycheck, 2:1 or 3:1 deals with the mid-majors (as opposed to ASU's upcoming home and home with New Mexico and insane home and home deal with UTSA, Wazzu's home and home with SMU,
Washington's home and home with BYU, Oregon and Oregon St's home and homes with Boise,
Arizona's home and home with New Mexico and apparent upcoming home and home with Nevada,
Stanford's home and home with Navy and upcoming home and home with Army, etc.). It has to be a priority to get more home games.
Home games provide a meaningful edge, and other leagues are taking advantage, while the Pac-10 clearly isn't.

Quite frankly, if Oregon St had cancelled one of the Boise/TCU road games and scheduled a home game creampuff win, they'd have been at six wins with a bowl game,
instead of five wins and no bowl game. Would that have made them a better team in any way? Of course not. But in the half-assed world of league ratings analysis and human polls rating teams,
it would have made them look like a better team, would have put them in the postseason (which would have helped the Pac-10's bowl partners) and would have given a nice boost to Oregon
and Stanford (who came fairly close to not having a top 4 BCS ranking, which probably would have meant the Alamo Bowl for them). That's tangible value to the rest
of the league, even if it would have been around a net wash or loss for Oregon St's bottom line.

I'm not sure how the league can move its schedules in this direction: incentives for extra home games, changing the bowl payout for a team from an even 1/12 to something like 2/13 (the bowl team gets
a double share, everyone else gets an equal cut), or actual league mandates, but there's no question that it's imperative that the league do this.
The incentive structure for gimmicking up schedules
couldn't be clearer, and the if Pac-12 refuses to join the party, they're only going to hurt themselves in the process.

5) More on league ratings: I've gotten some comments from SEC people who believe that the model has them too low (although a 0.30 rating is still VERY good).
The two biggest things holding back that league's rating are the % of home games and the very large number of games against 1-A cupcakes.

It's also worth noting that the SEC has the worst single OOC game rating of any AQ league by a substantial margin,
Vandy's horrific 21-point home loss to a pretty bad Wake Forest team; in fact, that was the only performance by any AQ team to rate in the bottom
40 losses nationwide.
It's a somewhat minor point (since it's just one game out of 37), but by itself the game probably dropped the league's rating by somewhere between 0.02 and 0.05,
which turned out to be a pretty big chunk of the difference between the SEC and the Pac-10.

Overall, while I certainly believe that the model's outputs are reasonable and defensible, it may be true that it's over-penalizing the SEC for the cupcake games.
That's going to be high on the list of things to dig into further over the off-season. My suspicion is that it won't result in a material change
(and perhaps not any change at all), but I could very well be wrong.

I've also gotten some comments from Big Ten people who believe the model has them too low. I don't buy it. Multiple MAC losses, few quality wins (the best ones were against
Miami, ASU and Notre Dame [twice] ), a gimmick schedule with half of the OOC games against bottom 40 teams and over 2/3 of the games at home, only a 7-5 record vs AQ's...
it just wasn't a good year for the league. It's reasonable to argue them over the ACC (again, it's possible that the system is over-penalizing for the cupcake games),
but that's it. They were a clear few steps below the top three leagues (Pac-10, SEC, Big 12) in 2010. It's certainly possible that they have a good bowl run, which would change
the numbers, but for now, the resume just isn't there.

Oregon has the #1 win, a number of other quality performances, and is undefeated (and generally dominant) against a very
tough schedule.

Stanford has a boatload of high-quality performances, consistently blowing teams out even against an extremely tough schedule.
They have consistently played at an extremely high level this year, and the model rewards them for that feat.

A few weeks ago, Boise got crushed in the BCS rankings for losing a very close game on the road to a top 20 team. That was simply dumb.
They've been a dominant team all year long against a schedule that, while not fantastic,
compares reasonably well to at least a few other members of the top ten, including Ohio St
(who themselves played plenty of "Sisters of the Poor" opponents while playing only ONE quality team - Wisconsin,
who beat them).

Virginia Tech is an interesting case. Part of this difference is that the model doesn't count AA games
(which means that the JMU loss doesn't count against them here), but just as important is the fact that they've
gone on a tear through the ACC, 9-0 with a boatload of utter ass-kickings.
#6 may be a spot or two high, but they're clearly a top 10 team, especially if you weigh recent games more strongly
than early-season games (which many people do when thinking about teams). The BCS has them way too low.

Alabama is a great example of how in the BCS, hard schedules get punished, and easy schedules get rewarded.
Few teams have had tougher schedules than the Tide, and few have had worse luck in close games (two of their losses were by 3 or less).
It hasn't been their year, but that doesn't mean they're not an excellent team; Michigan St got hosed by having to face the Tide in their bowl game.

Nebraska has three losses, which is why they're rated poorly by the BCS. However, other than the awful Texas loss, the
other two were all quality performances. 3-point loss in title game to a very good Oklahoma team, 3-point loss at A&M are
two losses that are absolutely nothing to be ashamed of, which basically means (once again) the BCS is punishing a team
for its schedule. Moreover, Nebraska has had a number of very good showings, from the dominant wins at Washington and Kansas St
to the double-digit quality wins over Mizzou and Oklahoma St.

South Carolina has four losses... but two are to the BCS #1 team (though the latter was an ugly ass-kicking), one is to a very good Arkansas team (though it was an ugly loss),
and the other was an admittedly embarrassing defeat to Kentucky. Of course, they also had a great win over Alabama, dominating wins over Florida and Clemson, and have clearly
put together a strong record against an extremely tough schedule.

Florida St beat the crap out of Florida, then lost to an excellent Virginia Tech team and the net effect was to drop a spot in the BCS,
which is silly, yet another instance of the BCS actively punishing tough schedules.
The 'Noles have had a legitimately tough schedule, they've had close losses (except at Oklahoma),
and generally dominant wins (though BC and Clemson were close). They're underrated in the BCS.

Arizona is the same type of story as most other teams that compu-picks thinks is underrated: very tough schedule,
tendency towards blowout wins and close losses (except at Stanford and Oregon, compu-picks' #'s 1 and 2). They're better than
their record, and despite what the BCS thinks, there simply
aren't 25 teams out there better than the Arizona Wildcats.

USC isn't eligible to be ranked by the BCS. If they were eligible, they'd very possibly be ranked. Five losses is never fun, but they've had a tough schedule,
they've beaten a top 25 Arizona team and a nearly top 25 Hawaii team (they're top 25 in the BCS though), both on the road,
and two of their losses have come to elite Oregon and Stanford teams (the Stanford loss was a nail-biter as well).

I don't really have much to say about NC St. I think the BCS is punishing them a bit because it's generally underrating the ACC; other than that they have the usual formula for an underrated team,
tough schedule, generally close losses, a number of dominant wins (though some were pretty close).

Arizona St is the poster child for a team that's been punished for a really tough schedule. They're 4-6 in 1-A games... but they've played six road games,
they've played all 10 games against AQ opponents, and two of their home games were against top five teams (and one was a very close loss). They also played a very good Wisconsin team (rated #5 in BCS) on the road
and only lost by a single point. They had an admittedly atrocious showing at Cal, but other than that it's been a boatload of quality performances, just against
a schedule that was ridiculously hard. It's extremely unfortunate that this team isn't allowed to make a bowl game, especially since SJ St bailed on them late.
That said, those are the rules, and they should have found a replacement. In week one, Baylor, Kansas, Miami, Virginia (who ALSO had 2 AA games on the schedule),
West Virginia, Rutgers, Air Force, SD St, Nevada, Louisiana Tech, and probably a bunch of others were all playing AA teams; if ASU tried harder, they probably
could have gotten one of those teams on the schedule. Presuming a win in such a game (fair assumption against at least half the list, though teams like Nevada, Miami, WV etc. would
have been tough), failing to do so cost them a bowl game. In 2010, ASU was a better team than around half of the teams who are going to bowls, which says it all
about both how good ASU was and the administrative screw-ups that cost them a bowl game.

7) The following teams are ranked materially lower than the model than the BCS:
Auburn, Wisconsin, LSU, Michigan St, Mississippi St, Hawaii, UCF.

Auburn is playing fantastically right now, but they have had a number of early struggles (most notably against Clemson), which are affecting their numbers.
I'm inclined to think that compu-picks is underrating them... but I can see the argument.

Wisconsin is playing very well right now, but, even more than Auburn, had a number of early struggles (the 1-pt ASU win, the 13-pt SJ St win,
and worst of all, the 10-point loss to a pretty mediocre Michigan St team). I would say that compu-picks probably underrates them a bit... but
unless you choose to totally ignore their early-season issues, the BCS is overrating them.

LSU's schedule may not be at the very top of the list, but it's been strong and absolutely in line with their neighbors in the rankings.
Where they're getting hurt is, unsurprisingly, their large number of close to very close wins. 6 points (UNC), 6 points (WV), 2 points (Tenn), 4 points (Florida),
3 points (Bama), and 7 points (Ole Miss) has pretty much defined their resume. They dominated Miss St, which was a very good showing, but other than that it's been the Auburn
loss, the Arkansas loss, a bunch of close to very close wins, and comfortable wins against Vandy and ULM, neither of which are going to move the dial much.

In the BCS, Michigan St recently rose two points after barely beating a mediocre Penn St team, one week after they rose two spots after barely beating a bad Purdue team at home.
Once again, the BCS punishes tough schedules and rewards easy ones.
Moreover, in terms of season-long resumes, Michigan St has not been especially dominant (especially after they got waxed at Iowa), and has not had much of a schedule to date (Notre Dame
was the only decent non-conference opponent, and they missed Ohio St, and they had a ridiculous eight home games [one was AA]).
Even if you think compu-picks is too low on them, putting them into the top 10 is flat-out ridiculous. They're basically a homeless man's LSU, with the same tendency towards way too close
wins, a lack of good performances against teams not named Wisconsin, a crummy schedule, and the massive beating Iowa laid on them.

Mississippi St played four top 25 teams and lost to them all, though two of the four were close losses. They barely held on against an awful UAB team at home, and struggled against mediocre Ole Miss
and Kentucky teams. Top 25 is a bit of a reach for them, though to be fair it's not like compu-picks thinks there's a huge difference between them and #25 on the list.

Hawaii is 10-3... but with a really weak schedule, three double-digit losses (including a 35-point bludgeoning by Boise, a 18-point loss at a poor Colorado
team, and a 13-point home loss to USC). They also had a couple squeaker wins (Army by just 3, Nevada by 6).
They're a good team... but top 25 is too much.

One week after the ridiculous ranking of NIU, they gag in a bad loss and get replaced by another joke, Central Florida. UCF probably doesn't
even belong in the top 40, much less the top 25. Their schedule was atrocious, they've played precisely one team that's even arguably top 25 (NC St...
though the BCS doesn't have them ranked), and they have three losses anyway.
The best two teams they beat were probably Houston and SMU. UCF shouldn't even be within shouting distance of the top 25. Utterly ridiculous.

8) This isn't directly to do with the list, but here's a couple fun lists of results:

If you try to apply "head to head is the only thing that matters" logic to this list, your head will explode.
You can tease out certain information from these lists (Wisconsin, Alabama and Washington had both of their games on the road, they get a bonus;
Iowa, Nebraska, Arkansas, Arizona and Air Force had losses much closer than their wins, therefore they get a bonus; etc.), but what it really does
is highlight that each of these results was JUST ONE GAME. To properly evaluate a team, you need to evaluate the whole
resume, not pretend that a single result means everything and the rest almost nothing just because of head to head "logic".
That's why Compu-Picks doesn't give ANY special consideration to head to head results. You are what your resume says you are. Period.

Technical notes about the lists:

1) Conference ratings are straight averages of all of the teams in the league. There is no "central averaging" (like Sagarin does),
or over-weighting the top teams, or anything like that. Such approaches would yield different numbers,
and could potentially change the order of some of the leagues.

2) Games against AA teams are not counted. There are many good arguments both for and against counting such games
(see this link for an interesting analysis of the issue).
I have elected not to count these results in the Compu-Picks model. As is the case almost every year, this means that one or two especially surprising AA upsets
don't make it into the numbers, skewing the results to a fair degree for a couple of teams. I believe that this is a more than acceptable tradeoff given the substantial issues
that counting AA games would create, but you are certainly welcome to disagree with my decision on this matter.

3) As mentioned here, the purpose of this system is to make picks, not to create a list used for rankings.
As such, I evaluate the system solely on the basis of how good a job it does making picks. I do not evaluate the system on the basis of whether or not
it agreed with AP polls, BCS rankings, the BCS computers, or any other such list out there. In fact, the system has a long and established history of
being substantially different than those sources. I am fine with these differences. To be honest, I publish these lists because I find them interesting
and thought-provoking, and because I believe it is a good thing to introduce an approach that doesn't simply regurgitate the same avenues of thinking as you can find
in most places.

4) The system is noisy, especially earlier in the year. This is why I start with only a top 10 / bottom 10 list, and slowly expand it. While I believe
that the numbers are reasonable, I certainly accept that they're not perfect. If you believe that a specific team is over- or under-ranked, you may well be right.
I bring this up because if you're going to criticize the system for being wrong about a team, I'd appreciate it if you explain why
you think the system is substantially wrong, rather than just marginally so (if it's just one or two slots off,
especially well before the end of the year, I'd consider that well within a reasonable error range).

5) Some people have expressed curiosity about compu-picks' schedule ratings. Essentially, it's the average difficulty of all 1-A games that a team has played to date,
which basically means the average rating of all of a team's 1-A opponents, then adjusted for things like home-field advantage. This, of course, varies enormously
from the NCAA's official schedule ratings, which simply look at the opponents' winning percentages and that's it. Needless to say, the NCAA's approach is silly
and deeply flawed; it's better than picking numbers out of a hat, but no serious analyst should rely on it at all when trying to evaluate how difficult a team's schedule actually was.

Javascript must be enabled to view this page.
<!-- nojsstats is a free service hosted on google app engine http://nojsstats.blogspot.com/ -->
<img src="http://nojsstats.appspot.com/UA-45154107-1/scout.com" />
Static Content for Story Detail is ready.